Good Guys 1..Bad Guys 0

[MJS]

Seeing that we've been posting alot of stories about the good guys fighting back, I thought I'd post one that happened here in CT. today.

Link

New Haven, Conn. (WTNH) - Police in New Haven are investigating a shooting in Wooster Square section of the city, and it looks as if the victim was the bad guy in an attempted crime.
It happened around 1:30pm in the area of 21 Wooster Place near the park.
In the ambulance, the man transported to the hospital was allegedly both perpetrator and victim. He's the victim of a gunshot fired -- police say -- by the man he was trying to mug in broad daylight in Wooster Square.

The one thing that I disagree with, is the news station calling the badguy the victim. No, I'm sorry, the guy that got shot was not the victim. The guy he was mugging was the victim.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Seeing that we've been posting alot of stories about the good guys fighting back, I thought I'd post one that happened here in CT. today.

Link




The one thing that I disagree with, is the news station calling the badguy the victim. No, I'm sorry, the guy that got shot was not the victim. The guy he was mugging was the victim.

** ragged, long-suffering sigh **

I say, we really have got to get these people to spend more range time and do some stress-fire exercises, these repeated incidents of noncritical hits simply must be curtailed at once.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Seeing that we've been posting alot of stories about the good guys fighting back, I thought I'd post one that happened here in CT. today.

Link




The one thing that I disagree with, is the news station calling the badguy the victim. No, I'm sorry, the guy that got shot was not the victim. The guy he was mugging was the victim.

The wording should have been 'wounded suspect'.

 

[sgtmac_46]

** ragged, long-suffering sigh **

I say, we really have got to get these people to spend more range time and do some stress-fire exercises, these repeated incidents of noncritical hits simply must be curtailed at once.

Indeed. Instead we are paying for medical care and incarceration. He'll probably get out of jail and file for disability.

 

[grydth]

Given the very limited facts available as of this time, I wouldn't be so quick to draw conclusions here...... "a heated argument" could be many things.

 

[MJS]

A little update. Not too much more info though.
http://www.courant.com/community/new-haven/hc-mugger-shooter-0428,0,1522536.story

NEW HAVEN
A would-be mugger who was shot Monday afternoon when he attempted to rob a man armed with a gun has been identified as a 40-year-old from New Haven.

Hector Santiago was taken to Yale-New Haven Hospital with injuries that were not life-threatening. He was in fair condition Tuesday.

• Police: Intended Victim Shoots Mugger In New Haven


The man who shot him was identified as William Kiselewsky, 65, of Southbury.

He was eating lunch on a park bench about 1 p.m. near St. Michael's Church on Wooster Place when Santiago approached him.

"Give me all your money or I'll stab you," Santiago, who was armed with a knife, allegedly said to Kiselewsky, police said. He backed Kiselewsky up against a fence, then Kiselewsky pulled out a gun and fired, police said. Police said Kiselewsky was licensed to carry his firearm. He was questioned and released.

Witnesses told police they saw a struggle between the two men and heard gunshots.

The good thing, is it seems, at the moment anyways, that the police are not filing charges. The downside is that this piece of trash could. As I always say, how a judge or jury could possibly side with a guy who clearly committed an attempted armed robbery, is beyond me.

Another good thing IMO anyways) is that the intended victim didn't just hand over his cash. He fought back for what he felt was right.

 

[Malleus]

As I always say, how a judge or jury could possibly side with a guy who clearly committed an attempted armed robbery, is beyond me.

Well, it's simple. The guy could have handed over his cash, no-one might have been hurt. Now someone's hospitalized, and could easily have died. He might still die.

Valuing a couple of dollars and a cell-phone over someone's health or life is abhorrent, no matter how wrong the attacker was in trying to rob someone.

 

[girlbug2]

Well, it's simple. The guy could have handed over his cash, no-one might have been hurt. Now someone's hospitalized, and could easily have died. He might still die.

Valuing a couple of dollars and a cell-phone over someone's health or life is abhorrent, no matter how wrong the attacker was in trying to rob someone.

While I agree with that principle, look at your above paragraph. You are assuming what would have happened if the victim had complied with the mugger's demands. In fact, the decision to defend oneself is one that can only be made by the victim, based on the information that they have at that time, backed up by their gut feeling. The victim may have felt that he was going to come to harm, regardless of whether or not he handed over his cell phone and cash. We monday morning quarterbacks are in no position to know at this time.

 

[MJS]

Well, it's simple. The guy could have handed over his cash, no-one might have been hurt. Now someone's hospitalized, and could easily have died. He might still die.

Valuing a couple of dollars and a cell-phone over someone's health or life is abhorrent, no matter how wrong the attacker was in trying to rob someone.

Girlbug2 pretty much said it for me. I've said the same thing many times. There is nothing to say that if the victim complies that he/she still wont be shot, stabbed, killed, etc. Its happened many times. There is a 50/50 chance that I may/may not get hurt. I'd rather fight back, but again, thats just me. I know there're folks that will disagree with that, and thats cool, and I also know there're folks that agree with me 100%, and thats cool too.

Perhaps, although doubtful, this will send a message to the pieces of trash, that feed off of stealing and forcefully taking from others. You never know when someone will fight back, pull a weapon of their own, etc.

I mind my own business. I do my best to always be alert and aware of whats going on around me, I do my best to avoid problem areas and places. That being said, when someone tries to take something from me, cause me or a loved one harm, breaks into my house, then IMHO, they get whatever comes their way. Frankly, I have no respect or remorse for someone who tries to do those things. If they get hurt or worse, in the process, then it is what it is. That may sound cold, heartless and macho, but you know what, I really don't care. I really can't bring myself to respect people like that.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Well, it's simple. The guy could have handed over his cash, no-one might have been hurt. Now someone's hospitalized, and could easily have died. He might still die.

Valuing a couple of dollars and a cell-phone over someone's health or life is abhorrent, no matter how wrong the attacker was in trying to rob someone.

*SIGH*

That.

Ain't.

The Point.

Read the description of events again:

He was eating lunch on a park bench about 1 p.m. near St. Michael's Church on Wooster Place when Santiago approached him.

"Give me all your money or I'll stab you," Santiago, who was armed with a knife, allegedly said to Kiselewsky, police said. He backed Kiselewsky up against a fence, then Kiselewsky pulled out a gun and fired, police said.

INTENTION ain't ****. All that matters is the PERCEPTION of a REASONABLE PERSON.

In this case the situation meets all 3 points of the AOJ triad (Ability, Opportiunity, Jeopardy) that makes you right in defending yourself with lethal force.

ABILITY( Are they physically capable of carrying out the threat): is Present( The scumbag had physical advantage (Young vs.elderly), and therefore safe to assume a size or strength advantage as well (because scumbags don't pick out victims who appear stronger than they are or who they think might give them a problem, after all) and a weapon(knife).

OPPORTUNITY(Are they close enough to carry out the threat without impediment or obstacle): is Present(Scumbag was close enough to victim to back him against a wall in case you missed it).

JEOPARDY(They are in the process or beginning the process of carrying out the threat or are otherwise behaving in such a way that a REASONABLE PERSON would conclude that they are in IMMINENT( ie: "If I wait any longer it will be too late") danger of death or serious injury) is Present ( He has STATED "Give me all your money or I'll stab you", has already committed an assault in progress by backing the victim into a wall, and is armed with a knife. Just exactly how much longer is the guy SUPPOSED to wait, d'you think?

It's not ABOUT the wallet, and there is no ROOM in the REAL WORLD for "mights" and "could haves". The guy was morally and legally in the clear.All three elements of AOJ must be present at once to be cleared to use deadly force. They were. He performed the indicated response. Story, comma, end of.

Now if only he'd been a more careful shot this could've been an open-and-shut self defense case,and all those citizens who will doubtless be summonsed for jury duty for the trial could have been spared the tiresome exercise of hearing about how the victim violated the scumbag's Constitutional right to rob him.

 

[SensibleManiac]

Well, it's simple. The guy could have handed over his cash, no-one might have been hurt. Now someone's hospitalized, and could easily have died. He might still die.

Valuing a couple of dollars and a cell-phone over someone's health or life is abhorrent, no matter how wrong the attacker was in trying to rob someone.

Your assuming alot here.

Personally I don't think I would feel comfortable telling anyone not to defend their property because of someone who might take their life for it, (talk about de-valuing life) because it's not right to risk the attackers safety.

Do what you want, but when someone is willing to threaten you with a weapon, I no longer trust what they say, (maybe I'm funny that way),
protecting your property by shooting them might seem questionable to you, but think about this, youare assuming that the belongings were all the criminal was after, we don't know that, he might have stabbed him anyway, when threatened, running is the first option is it's there, clearly here it wasn't, then better to be on the safe side and take your attacker out if possible.
It's called survival.

 

[MA-Caver]

I would have to side with Girlbug as well as the idea that don't defend a couple bucks and a nice watch/cellphone/blackberry or whatever when someone is robbing you with a weapon ... just give it over, is not a really great idea at all.
Now chances are the perp may just take off and nobody was hurt except the victim's pride... What of the robber... now embolden, more confident to do it again and again and probably again to the 10th power.
Sure it's tragic if a self-defense goes wrong for 21.00 of cash and a cheap cellphone because the victim says "no, go away leave me alone!" or fights back and loses.
Now consider the robber after those circumstances. Probably less embolden, less confident because dammit he had to fight harder and then kill somebody when all they were wanting to do was get a couple of bucks for their next bottle or something to eat.
Granted there are those who are just hard-core or even gang-members told to "rob somebody" to maintain membership or gain status.

It's a double edged sword to be sure.
Better to fight back I say and fight HARD for what's yours, especially if you've the training to do so... or are you just studying MA to stay healthy? The golden rule applies... do unto others as they would've done to you... good and bad!
(and yes, I know the correct wording is "do unto others as you would HAVE THEM do unto you" but out in the streets it's application does NOT apply IMO. ).

 

[derobec]

Well, it's simple. The guy could have handed over his cash, no-one might have been hurt. Now someone's hospitalized, and could easily have died. He might still die.

Valuing a couple of dollars and a cell-phone over someone's health or life is abhorrent, no matter how wrong the attacker was in trying to rob someone.

Hi,

Now, is that not where bullying starts?

We threaten a person, they comply.
We move on to our next victim, this time with greater confidence.
'Success' at our new game emboldens us to the point where we can't stop.

Ultimately, we're either going to kill someone or misjudge them -maybe they'll just have a better 'weapon' than us... (that weapon may be nothing more than a well honed belief in right and wrong -and the self confidence to stand up and be counted).
Live by the sword, you'd best be prepared to die by it.

Regards,
William

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I would have to side with Girlbug as well as the idea that don't defend a couple bucks and a nice watch/cellphone/blackberry or whatever when someone is robbing you with a weapon ... just give it over, is not a really great idea at all.
Now chances are the perp may just take off and nobody was hurt except the victim's pride... What of the robber... now embolden, more confident to do it again and again and probably again to the 10th power.
Sure it's tragic if a self-defense goes wrong for 21.00 of cash and a cheap cellphone because the victim says "no, go away leave me alone!" or fights back and loses.
Now consider the robber after those circumstances. Probably less embolden, less confident because dammit he had to fight harder and then kill somebody when all they were wanting to do was get a couple of bucks for their next bottle or something to eat.
Granted there are those who are just hard-core or even gang-members told to "rob somebody" to maintain membership or gain status.

It's a double edged sword to be sure.
Better to fight back I say and fight HARD for what's yours, especially if you've the training to do so... or are you just studying MA to stay healthy? The golden rule applies... do unto others as they would've done to you... good and bad!
(and yes, I know the correct wording is "do unto others as you would HAVE THEM do unto you" but out in the streets it's application does NOT apply IMO. ).

Exactly. A dead victim can't testify against the scumbag after all, so "no witnesses" is the way they may decide they want it to go down no matter what you do and there have been enough incidents of this that you MUST ALWAYS ASSUME that will happen. I try never to use "must always" in terms of self defense but this is a pretty good time for it.

 

[derobec]

Exactly. A dead victim can't testify against the scumbag after all, so "no witnesses" is the way they may decide they want it to go

As I see it, there can be no option.

Sure, they might just scarper once I've given them my money, or, if I fight back they may kill me, but what will happen if I do nothing to stop them? Will they kill, beat, rape their next victim? Now, that would make me feel really good about myself.

Let's extend the idea of 'self-defence' to acknowledging a responsibility to the rest society as well as ourselves.

Regards,
William

 

[Bruno@MT]

Well, it's simple. The guy could have handed over his cash, no-one might have been hurt. Now someone's hospitalized, and could easily have died. He might still die.

Valuing a couple of dollars and a cell-phone over someone's health or life is abhorrent, no matter how wrong the attacker was in trying to rob someone.

Cool.

Where do you live?

If someone would approach you (perhaps rings your doorbell) and tells you to hand over all your money, then you would have to give him all of your money, right? Because, then noone would get hurt.

I mean that was your opinion, right?
do you have any idea how monumentally silly it sounds when put like that?

A man was threatened with deadly force. He defended himself. Whether the attacker survives or not is not important, except perhaps to the conscience of the shooter. Legally speaking, he condoned the used of deadly force by initiating it himself.